Foreign policy is uniquely an arena where we should base
decisions on the landscape of the world as it is . . . not as we
wish it to be. I see the world as it is. I am a realist, not a
neoconservative, nor an isolationist.

When candidate John McCain argued in 2007 that we should remain
in Iraq for 100 years, I blanched and wondered what the unintended
consequences of prolonged occupation would be. But McCain’s
call for a hundred year occupation does capture some truth: that
the West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with
terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam.

As many are quick to note, the war is not with Islam but with a
radical element of Islam - the problem is that this element is no
small minority but a vibrant, often mainstream, vocal and numerous
minority. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia, adhere to at least
certain radical concepts such as the death penalty for blasphemy,
conversion, or apostasy. A survey in Britain after the subway
bombings showed 20% of the Muslim population in Britain approved of
the violence.

Some libertarians argue that western occupation fans the flames
of radical Islam – I agree. But I don’t agree that absent western
occupation that radical Islam “goes quietly into that good night.”
I don’t agree with FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets (or
Radical Islam in today’s case) can be discouraged by “the glad hand
and the winning smile.”

Americans need to understand that Islam has a long and
perseverant memory. As Bernard Lewis writes, “despite an immense
investment in the teaching and writing of history, the general
level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low.
The Muslim peoples, like everyone else in the world, are shaped by
their history, but unlike some others, they are keenly aware of
it.”

Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though
at times stateless, radical Islam is also supported by radicalized
nations such as Iran. Though often militarily weak, radical Islam
makes up for its lack of conventional armies with unlimited
zeal.

For Americans to grasp the mindset of radical Islam we need to
understand that they are still hopping mad about the massacre at
Karbala several hundred years ago. Meanwhile, many Americans seem
to be more concerned with who is winning Dancing with the
Stars.

Over 50 percent of Americans still believe Iraq attacked us on
9/11. Until we understand the world around us, until we understand
at least a modicum of what animates our enemies, we cannot defend
ourselves and we cannot contain our enemies.

I think all of us have the duty to ask where are the Kennans of
our generation? When foreign policy has become so monolithic, so
lacking in debate that Republicans and Democrats routinely pass
foreign policy statements without debate and without votes, where
are the calls for moderation, the calls for restraint?

Anyone who questions the bipartisan consensus is immediately
castigated, rebuked and their patriotism challenged. The most
pressing question of the day, Iran developing nuclear weapons is
allowed to have less debate in this country than it receives in
Israel.

In Israel, the current head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, states
that we need to quit discussing Iran and nuclear weapons as an
“existential” threat to Israel as that confines us to only one
possible cataclysmic response. The former head of the Mossad, Meir
Dagan, also cautions of the unintended consequences of pre-emptive
bombing of Iran, both the possibility the strikes are ineffective
and that Israel suffers a significant conventional missile
response.

Yuval Diskin, the former chief of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic
security service, recently said “an attack against Iran might
cause it to speed up its nuclear program.”

Israel's army chief of staff suggested in an interview with the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the Iranian nuclear threat
was not quite as imminent as some have portrayed it.

On the other side of the coin, Prime Minister Netanyahu warns
that Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons.

It seems that debate over Iran is more robust in Israel than in
the US.

I have voted for Iranian sanctions in the hope of preventing war
and allowing for diplomacy. The sanctions have not been fully
implemented but they do appear to have brought Iran back to the
negotiating table.

I did, however, hold up further sanctions unless Sen. [Harry]
Reid allows a vote on my amendment that states, “Nothing in this
bill is to be interpreted as a declaration of war or a use of
authorization of force.” The debate over war is the most important
debate that occurs in our country and should not be glossed
over.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Actually I that the failure of the Soviet Union had much more to
do with their own system failure.

The Chinese communists realized that and changed the economics
without changing the power structure

The North Koreans kept the whole system and the only thing
stopping a collapse is outside aid and the fact that the present
leadership would probably get torn to pieces if the did not
maintain their power.

Sure, but Reagan's increase in defense spending--and the Soviet
Union's corresponding inability to follow suit in the 1980s--helped
force Gorbachev's hand. He didn't dismantle the totalitarian state
willingly; he had no choice.

The U.S. defense buildup did play a role; it was not the only
factor in the demise of the USSR, but it was a factor.

Well, I would not discount the fact that North Korea is a giant
prison camp. The Chinese and the Koreans keep the northern border
fairly tightly, and the US and the Koreans mind the southern
border. Nothing but water to the east and west.

At this point, the DMZ is not protecting SK from NK, and it's
not protecting SK from a China that has already abandoned maoism
and has no desire to impose it on Seoul. We are effectively
protecting NK from SK now, not militarily but culturally. Locking
them in and helping them isolate themselves helps perpetuate the
stasis on the inside.

Vietnam, the one we lost, also gave up Maoism. These days they
want a trade agreement and foreign investment, not bloody communist
revolution. I don't think the Jong Il's could have maintained their
rule this long without us.

Wow - A U.S. Senator who is willing to say honest stuff about
Islam. He's right, they have very long memories and know that their
current tactics have worked well in the past.

His history of Vietnam isn't so accurate. The draw done of
American troops after '71 was accelerated due to budget cuts. Most
of the promised military aid and air support for Vietnam just never
materialized thanks to Congressional Democrats.

I strongly disagree with the comment that if left to their own
devices the radical islamists will not go into the night.

In essence, I think Rand Paul is falling into the trap of
forgetting that there are vast populations that the Radical
Islamists are trying to control, and that they have never tolerated
the degree of control that the islamists wish to exert.

First, it’s important to understand that radical islam is a
catch phrase lumping together multiple sects that are at best
allies of convenience, and are generally at each other’s throats.
The major example of this is the Sunni/Shiite split. The
Taliban/Northern Alliance fight in 1998 – 2001 was a proxy war
between the Sunni (and Wahabbist supported) Taliban and the Shiite
friendly, Iranian backed Northern Alliance.

These sects are really backward, especially when it comes to
economics. As a result, whenever they come to power, they people
under their control experience a miserable existence. The history
of Islam is replete with new tyrants overthrowing older ones who
have so pissed off the people they rule over that the outgoing
tyrant can’t even intimidate people into backing him any more. We
saw this really dramatically when local clan leaders in Iraq turned
against Al Queda after Al Queda’s brutality become so unbearable
that they were willing to ally with the hated heretical foreign
invaders.

So a policy of containment would work: the various groups would
essentially fight each other and gradually lose influence as the
rise of the Internet and the improved standard of living offered by
capitalism distracts people from violent religious sects.

However, containment isn’t sufficient. One really disturbing
aspect of Arabs are their insularity – the belief that they really
have nothing to gain from other cultures. A stat I found pretty
horrifying is how few books get translated into Arabic. The
Persians are far better, but Shiite religious leaders suffer from
the same conviction that they need learn nothing from outsiders.
There are some projects out there seeking to change that, some
translating books in the Enlightenment tradition into Arabic, etc,
but I think ultimately it will be popular culture such as TV shows
that will form the nucleation points for the phase change into more
western friendly modes.

Another powerful catalyst towards change is of course,
immigration. As an immigrant myself, I cannot express how much of
an evangelical effect the stories coming from immigrants to people
in the old country are. The ideas go back to the old country and
often have a liberalising effect, either to tamp down on emigration
(when the rates of population loss are huge) or to reduce
unrest.

I think that a policy of containment, cultural imperialism ( :)
) and conscious maintenance of classically liberal institutions and
approaches to criminal prosecution etc would shatter the radical
islamists more thoroughly than any series of military losses
followed by hostile regimes supressing them by force.

Economic backwardness has not been a problem for many of
history's most bellicose nations -- or rather, hasn't been an
impediment in causing problems for other nations.

No one labors under the delusion that nations under the thumb of
radical Islam will be particularly successful or even democratic --
the problem is that radical Islam, like many other totalizing
ideologies, is for the restless young and the cunning old: it's
where the zeitgeist and the energy in the Islamic world (but less
broadly, the Arab world) can be found. Such movements can survive
for a long time before their energy peters out.

I broadly agree with you that military intervention is far less
useful in the conflict than containment and cultural imperialism,
but some "gunboat diplomacy" in dealing with the region is
appropriate IMO.

Look at Egypt, sure the muslim brotherhood had the ground game
to seize power, but a significant minority doesn't want what
they're offering. It remains to be seen but maybe Egypt is past the
point of no return on liberalization.

This is why it makes no sense to give the muslim brothers F-16's
and M-1 tanks.

The native Egyptian brand of Islam is very moderate. The
Islamists need to be shown to be trying to impose a foreign
barbarian way of life on Egypt. However, the USA is not the agent
to directly broadcast that message.

One really disturbing aspect of Arabs are their
insularity – the belief that they really have nothing to gain from
other cultures.

This is changing in some quarters. I also doubt that it's ever been
strictly true for the whole Peninsula, as the southern and northern
shores of the Gulf have been in constant contact and trade for
centuries and, for example, sultans in the area of Oman have long
histories of seafaring, to the point of having a long cultural (and
colonial) connection to Zanzibar and to a lesser extent, the Asian
subcontinent.

For like the fifty-leventh time: Islam is the predominant
religion among Arabs, but there are many adherents of Islam who are
not arabs. Indonesia is the world's most populous Islamic nation.
Persians (Iran) are not Arabs, but are predominantly Islamic. Also
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Albanians, Chinese...

PRC is a big big place. In the western part of the country,
there are large swaths of territory where Islam is the majority
religion. We can thank Allah for that too. If it weren´t for the
reasonably high standards of hygiene that Islam demands of its
cooks, it would be rancid lard from Beijing all the way to the
Kazakh border.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since the 1920s. They
show no signs of going away, regardless of what we do.

Wahhabism--the ideology behind radical Islam--has been around
since the 18th Century. It also shows no signs of going away
soon.

One element I think Rand doesn't address is the notion of an
"ideological counterinsurgency".

What the Islamists are selling is the notion that the adoption
of some "pure Muslim society" would allow the Muslim world to
regain the ascendancy over the West it had until the 17th
Century--the tide turned definitively following the Ottoman defeat
in the Battle of Vienna in 1683, even though Ottoman power had
started to decay before that.

In essence, the Islamists are selling the same "golden age"
snake oil that Hitler sold the Germans--"put me in charge, and I'll
restore [Germany][the Ummah] to its 'rightful place'". It's a
powerful pitch and one that needs to be countered by an appeal from
the Muslim world to join modernity.

Reality is what it is, and Drake is essentially correct.
Moderate Muslims downplay large chunks of their own religion, much
the way "cafeteria Catholics" do in this country. Most people have
no interest in unending jihad, and so it's easy to focus on the
charitable and moral aspects of Islam and ignore the part about
world conquest.

It's that very argument that Islamists make--that hedonism and
lack of religious zeal have sapped Muslims of their essential
strength and robbed them of their birthright.

That is of course true, but it would be nonsense to say that
religious texts thus have no bearing on the actions of the devout
-- especially for a religion which places much more emphasis
foundational text than the other major religions.

Sects of Islam that do not claim the Qu'ran as divine and which
allow for higher criticism or other non-literalist interpretation
are considered heretical.

That's absolutely true, and it also shows why there is no hope
in trying to "reform" Islam. The Quran and the Hadiths are what
they are, and the 1,500 years of scholarly interpretations of them
are not going away.

My larger point is that the texts of Islam include doctrines
that a Christian would not consider to be "religious" in
nature.

Muhammad was a cult leader, and he maintained absolute and rigid
control over the lives of his followers. His teachings and commands
were written down decades later in the Hadiths and became
doctrinal. In that way, Islam resembles a militaristic cousin of
Mormonism more than it does mainline Christianity.

Uh, no they don't. The whole nation-building enterprise is
predicated on the notion that there's a well-spring of liberal
democratic sentiment that for whatever reason is being suppressed
by forces that must be overcome using military might.

Look at the statements about the Arab Spring made by GWB and
other prominent neo-conservatives or others sympathetic to
them.

They're not selling prosperity. They're selling power. Educated
Muslims have long looked back to their "golden age", and it has
little to do with religious observance, but military power.

Your second statement has a large element of truth. Islam,
unlike Christianity, is both a religion and a political system tied
together. There is no such thing as a "purely religious" form of
Islam. This is the difficulty that the West faces in trying to
counter Islamic fundamentalism. Essentially, we have to convince
Muslims to stop being so Muslim and become more like us.

One school of thought says that Islamic fundamentalism is a
rearguard action against the encroaching westernization of the
Muslim world--in essence, that Islamism is that last gasp of a
dying culture. You wouldn't think Islamism would be that difficult
to counter. We've got the goods and the fancy lifestyles. They've
got the promise of unending religious warfare and women wearing
tents around. We'll see.

I do know that putting American boots on the ground does not
further the "ideological counterinsurgency." American porn and
television is probably a more effective weapon.

I don't know about that man. It's hard to argue that a return to
Islamic fundementalism made Afghanistan powerful. In military
terms, modernist regimes are normally much more powerful than
Islamist ones.

If they were after military power they would be buying tanks,
not banning dancing.

Why do you think most Islamist propaganda focuses on pictures of
highly bearded fellows brandishing AK-47s? They look pathetic and
deranged to us, but the symbolic value of an archetypal Islamic Man
wielding a machine gun from a confident pose shows exactly what
Islamism is about.

There is a deep lack of confidence and self-esteem among
educated Muslims, which has existed for a long time, and the
message of Islamism is aimed at converting such grievances into
political power--not at a rational discussion of how to militarily
take on the West. The working assumption is that we are weak and
won't stand up to a united Muslim world--united under the Islamist
leaders, naturally.

Islam just needs some time to mature, like Christianity has.
When Christianity was the same age as Islam is now, they were
killing people for believing the wrong things and having wars to
spread their religion too.

I'm not sure how seriously this idea ought to be taken, but it
is interesting to consider.

It's inaccurate to compare Islam and Christianity. Despite the
underlying base of Jewish cosmology they share, the two belief
systems couldn't be more different.

The use of Christianity as a justification for empire and
political struggle is a direct contradiction of the religion's
basic message--and this was understood and criticized at the time.
Christianity expressly holds itself as being above and apart from
politics. Caesar and God have different interests.

It's a mistake to think of Islam as "just another religion."
Islam fuses traditional religious ideals with a political
system.

Islam is only a few centuries younger than Christianity, and in
fact it *has* mellowed at various times and places. The Ottoman
sultans were hardly concerned about the niceties of religious
observance as they drank their powerful Turkish liquor and got busy
with their harems full of women they were not married to.

Educated and urban women in many Muslim countries stopped
wearing burkhas at least a century ago, and even stopped covering
their heads in a number of countries. Such outfits were seen as an
embarrassment--something done by country bumpkins. The introduction
of dress codes in the Islamist movement (burkhas and beards) is a
political act--an attempt to convert traditional dress from an
embarrassment into a statement of confidence and aggression.

I agree about the dress code. I knew a girl that was head of the
campus Muslim Student Association. She only started wearing a burqa
after 9/11, as an act of solidarity with other Muslims. If you push
upon people an "us vs. them" mentality, I don't think it's
surprising for those people to associate with the victimized group
and perform actions they otherwise wouldn't.

Culturally speaking, the goal is to expand the number of "us"
and reduce the number of "them." Islamic political ideology has
never been compatible with the West (or with any other neighbors)
and never will be.

It may well be that this is happening naturally right now. My
prediction over the long term is that the current wave of Islamism
will collapse from within. It requires a level of fanaticism and
asceticism that is impossible to maintain for extended periods.
Most Muslims do not want to live like that, and so they won't.

Year Zero of Christianity as a recognizable belief system was a
man letting himself be killed by his political and religious foes
for their benefit.

Year Zero of Islam as a recognizable belief system was Muhammad
promising a political change in Mecca to abolish the Kabba,
polytheism, and idol worship.

50 years after Christianity emerged on the scene, it was a
persecuted religion of fanatics who willingly died for their
beliefs. 50 years after Islam emerged on the scene, it was the
political point of cohesion for a worldwide empire which had
expanded aggressively into the territory of its neighbors.

Let's try a simple comparison between two different ethnic
groups converted to either religion: the pre-Christian Danes and
the pre-Islamic peninsular Arabs.

Pre-conversion: Both groups were quite warlike and feud-prone.
"Deliver us, O Lord, from the wrath of the Norsemen!" and "I
against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my
cousins and I against strangers" give a bit of the flavor of them,
respectively.

Today: Would anyone for a moment claim that Saudi Arabia is a
freer place than Denmark? Would anyone claim that the average Saudi
is more tolerant of other peoples' beliefs than the average
Dane?

Assuming that we aren't going to see a major global
economic/social catastrophe in the nearish future, I tend to agree
that radical Islam will eventually wither
away.

The problem is what happens between now and then, given its
current resurgence in the Mideast and now Africa, and given the
inevitability (wait for it) that these clowns will get their mitts
on some kind of WMD. Does anyone think Syria will resolve itself
without some leakage to the Islamists on that front? Islamists with
WMD is one of those high-damage scenarios that is hard to tolerate
even if you assign a low probability to them actually using it (on
us).

Containment might be the best we can do, but lets not forget
that containing the communist ideology meant fighting Korea and
Vietnam, and innumerable dirty little proxy wars. Its not
necessarily as benign as it sounds.

Rand looks like he's trying to have it both ways in this speech.
Be like his father, but not enough so to scare mainstream
Republicans.

He's right that neither pure isolationism nor military
adventurism are viable paths. But the strategy of containment in
the Cold War worked (to the degree it did) because it was applied
against traditional state actors.

By contrast, probably the most radical and dangerous Muslim
advocates in the world live in England and France. How do you
"contain" them, when their host countries (our closest allies) show
no inclination to do so?

What is the proper response to Islamic terrorist acts directed
against the USA? Rand's theory does nothing to answer that. The
most difficult part of the Islamic threat is that they have already
infiltrated the USA and Europe. They don't form fringe political
parties or carry cards around like the Reds did. It only takes a
handful of zealots to blow shit up. What does containment do about
that?

Bombing Afghanistan sure as hell doesn't stop the local nutters
already here blowing up stuff here. It's kind of like Sandy Hook -
no one wants to acccept it but there's nothing you can do to
mandate Utopia.

When the terrorists are being trained, funded, and guided by
foreign actors, then it is not merely a police issue.

One thing I don't do is pretend there is a simple answer to such
a problem.

Modern travel and communications make it impossible to prevent
small groups of dedicated zealots from causing havoc
internationally. I don't really know what to do about it, but I do
know that siccing Inspector Clouseau on them isn't going to fix
it.

You're completely off-base, Tonio. I'm critiquing (not
criticizing) his statement and pointing out what I see as its weak
spots--but I think he's doing the right thing.

Libertarian tendencies towards isolationism and appeasement are
problems. That doesn't mean the neocons are in the right, but
foreign policy is one area where I do diverge from "pure"
libertarianism to a degree.

In fact, I share Rand's overall view. Foreign policy has to be
based on the world as it is, and no approach will work 100 percent
of the time.

I'm also not criticizing cafeteria Catholics. I'm an atheist and
couldn't give a shit one way or the other.

I agree with most of what Rand is saying here, especially the
part about having an "unspoken" foreign policy, one that does not
need to be announced. Rand is also correct that radical Islam is
not going away anytime soon, and there will be more instances where
they will strike out against us. We need to be ready for this
inevitability, and the more efforts we put in to preparing for this
reality the better off we will be.

If that means pulling troops from Germany or Japan than so be
it. I agree with Rand that I don't know why we are still there. The
Soviet Union no longer threatens Europe the way it once did, and
China and Japan are eventually going to fight one way or the other.
Putting our best in brightest in the way as cannon fodder doesn't
make much sense.

The most important aspect of his speech is the Congressional
approval of military actions. You can argue about whether or not
the war in Iraq was wise, but it had congressional approval. The
recent activity in Libya did not, and who knows how that's going to
work out. The more congress gets involved in deciding when to send
our troops in to harms way the less likely they will be sent.

I'm glad to see Rand addressing Radical Islam and calling a
spade a spade. The problem is not going away, and until Islam has a
reformation that excludes the radical minority, the western world
will continue to have to deal with the consequences.

Maybe I'm sounding like a fanboy, but this is an
extremely strong foreign policy speech and ought
to make Dr. Paul a very serious contender for the 2016 nomination.
Really, it's one fo the strongest mainstream Republican responses
to neoconservatism as a foreign policy doctrine I've seen from a
politician in a long time.

I agree. There may be areas where I feel he needs to develop it
further, but this is a great first step for him. And it's certainly
a weighty and serious speech.

You almost wonder whether he's too smart to be in the Senate
with lizards like John McCain and Chuck Schumer. LOL

The biggest question is whether he can overcome the inevitable
insults and ad hominem attacks from the GOP establishment.

From a political perspective, this speech's biggest problem is
that its ideas are relatively complex and not easy to reduce to
stupid soundbites. GOP nitwits will undoubtedly hurl the
"unpatriotic" insult at him on TV.

The media's response will be interesting to watch, and perhaps
the deciding factor.

I don't mean from MSNBC and CBS. They're too busy fellating
Obama to bother with something like this. They would only use the
speech to try and stoke division within the GOP.

Of more importance for Rand's future is what Fox News, Rush
Limbaugh and the conservative commentariat do with the speech. This
is the battleground Rand has to win if he wants to become the GOP
nominee in 2016.

Honestly, I'm not so sure. I tend to mix in GOP circles a bit
(granted, New York City GOP circles, but...). And the hostility
they felt for his father just isn't there. Maybe it's the fact that
the guy in charge of killing foreigners now has a D after his name
rather than an R. Maybe it's the fact that they've realized that
10+ years of Republican foreign policy being summarized as "MOAR
WOAR!!!" just isn't winning them too many elections. Maybe it's the
Tea Parties pressuring them to do SOMETHING about spending. Maybe
it's the fact that Republican conservatives are increasingly
growing pissed off with the leadership. Or maybe it's the fact that
Rand Paul doesn't frame non-intervention in the one way
("blowback") most guaranteed to alienate Republicans. But, I will
say that I see a lot of the rank-and-file Republicans are a lot
more receptive to what he has to say than I'd expect.

I think you're right on all those counts. On conservative
message boards, I've seen a lot of appreciation for Rand's recent
statements and actions.

My own guess is that Rand is simply a much better politician
than his father.

Ron had a way of stating his positions (all of them, really) in
the least appealing way possible. Seemingly every issue during the
campaign was answered with 'end the Fed' or 'blowback', which made
him look like a kook.

It was frustrating watching Ron destroy himself during both of
the last two campaigns. Rand seems savvier, despite wading into the
swamp with the Civil Rights Act stuff.

It is the soldier’s job to do his duty - but it is the
citizen’s job to question their government

Best line in the whole damn speech. Although FWIW I agree with
the entire speech's premise, but that line gave me goosebumps just
reading it. And to think this was uttered by a currently serving
politician.

It would have been nice to have seen the word "trade" in a
foreign policy speech, rather than just "sanctions", although I
suppose a phrase like "engine of capitalism" is just one step
short. But here I am, thinking about the little guy in the streets.
Also, Rand Paul should learn the difference between "less" and
"fewer". Otherwise, I thought this was just right for the
audience.

In the indictment brought against Osama bin Laden for the 1993
WTC bombing, Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White included his
declaration of war on the United States.
Is it only a war if we declare war? And not a war because someone
declares war on us?

Now that Osama is sleeping with the fishes, does that mean his
"war" is over, since we defeated the person who declared it? If
not, when does it stop being a "war?"

The application of traditional foreign policy tools to non-state
actors is problematic, at best. I don't have the answers. But Rand
is dead-on correct in saying that Congress needs to reassert its
constitutional role as the deciding body in whether to go to war.
The War Powers Act was a despicable way for Congress to shirk its
duty.

"n the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the
mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was
the official position of the State Department to support radical
jihad against the Soviets."

Actually, it worked pretty well. The Soviet defeat in
Afghanistan played a large role in the eventual collapse of the
Soviet Union. I'll take fighting Al Qaeda over fighting the Soviet
Union any day.

Except that the USA never did fight the CCCP and enjoyed some
very prosperous days of peace while the CCCP was at its peak of
power. Fighting ¨Al Qaeda¨ on the other hand is proving to be
endless, costly and weirdly without any victories. You really see
an improvement?

¨The only thing 'weird' about our victories is that some choose
not to see them.¨

If the victory over ¨Al Qaeda¨ in Afghanistan comes at the cost
of a Taleban insurgency that is stronger now than some dozen years
previously at the start of NATO involvement, then clearly the
choice not to see them is the wise one. Much the same can be said
for involvement in Iraq, Yemen, Libya &c. If you have real
victories to show, then don´t be shy. I want to see them.

The peak of Soviet power I refer to was n the late 50s early
60s. US was not at the time engaged with endless proxy wars. But
the Soviets were technologically never stronger - twas the time of
Sputnik and Gagarin. Politically they hadn´t yet split with the
Chinese and culturally, they were n the midst of the ¨Thaw¨ when
the government was confident enough to loosen the ties on artists
like Solzhenitsyn and others. When Brezhnev came to power things
quickly soured, especially politically and economically. Culturally
too. There was the pervasive fear of nuclear annihilation but that
was self inflicted. Had the US been so inclined, there were non
first use pacts waiting to be signed.

There are some minor problems, but that is just haggling. Rand
Paul gets the big picture on radical Islam and knows it sometimes
requires intervention. This is the end of the line for pure
noninterventionism. Game over.

Most libertarians I know aren't diehard noninterventionists of
the Ron Paul stripe. Blowback is not the most appealing thing in
the world, even though it's more than likely true. Foreign policy
realism is a lot more popular (war only when it works in your
national interest, not just to "spread democracy")

You can never do just one thing. Blowback is inevitable. What
needs to be done is to be prepared for it. And decide in advance if
your objectives and results are worth it. Sometimes the "worth it"
takes hundreds of years to determine.

Eva. I agree that Eric`s blurb is impossible, on monday I bought
a gorgeous audi when I got my check for $8011 this-last/4 weeks and
just over ten k last munth. with-out a doubt this is the
most-financialy rewarding I've had. I began this 3 months ago and
pretty much straight away started to earn at least $76... per-hour.
I follow this website,, http://www.FLY38.COM

The strength of the Kremlin lies in the fact that it knows how
to wait. But the strength of the Russian people lies in the fact
that they know how to wait longer.” Radical Islam’s only real
strength is just such an endless patience.